|
i am harry posted:To the person who fetchingly described narcissism, linked it to Trump's behavior, and predicted he'd call Hillary a oval office at the debates, this dead soldier stuff isn't too far off! He won't swear but I think we will use language that eludes to rape. Things like "Pinning Hillary down on issues", or "Hillary will force America to lie on it's back!", or possibly more overt things so long as they can be spun to not really mean he was talking about rape or anything.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Whoolighams posted:Personal Facebook corollary: I see a decent handful of 20-somethings that are mostly apolitical but share bland Johnson posts once in a while. I never see what I'd call accomplishments but more "climbed a mountain", "supports liberty", and "he's rational and sane unlike the others!" Usually there is some comment along with the video of Gary Johnson that is something along the lines of "Wake up sheeple! There are other candidates out there!" As if we're the naive ones and not them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
those reviews are p great
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:The Post got into a bit of a sticky wicket a couple years ago when one of its photographers stood by and snapped photos of someone about to get struck by a passing subway train. It doesn't really "do" ethics. Joke's on them, that photographer wound up tormented by their own sense of inadequacy while exploring an infinite labyrinth beneath their new house in Virginia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
So I've seen some talk on it and it seems the biggest issue with our politics is that when it comes to a national scale, there is pretty much only two parties. I've seen some discussion on how to fix this and most people usually point to the Alternate Vote (as opposed to our current system which is like Past the Post or something ??) but would something like that really "fix" our system or would most people not even care and just vote Blue or Red anyways? e; DoctorWhat posted:Joke's on them, that photographer wound up tormented by their own sense of inadequacy while exploring an infinite labyrinth beneath their new house in Virginia. I feel like it is but I'm not certain but is that an As Above So Below reference
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Luna Was Here posted:So I've seen some talk on it and it seems the biggest issue with our politics is that when it comes to a national scale, there is pretty much only two parties. I've seen some discussion on how to fix this and most people usually point to the Alternate Vote (as opposed to our current system which is like Past the Post or something ??) but would something like that really "fix" our system or would most people not even care and just vote Blue or Red anyways? I think it's House of Leaves which I've read half of and still need to finish
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Luna Was Here posted:So I've seen some talk on it and it seems the biggest issue with our politics is that when it comes to a national scale, there is pretty much only two parties. I've seen some discussion on how to fix this and most people usually point to the Alternate Vote (as opposed to our current system which is like Past the Post or something ??) but would something like that really "fix" our system or would most people not even care and just vote Blue or Red anyways? It's a lot more complicated than that. A lot of the structural design of our voting system pushes us towards two parties, but even if we took all that away that doesn't mean that having two parties wouldn't necessarily continue to be the status quo, as there are advantages to it in terms of organization and resources you can throw at an election. If you look at most multi party parliamentary governments only two to three parties are major and relevant anyways, and often one or the other ideological group (usually the left) fractures into many smaller parties while the other does not, resulting in the single, unified front retaining power. See: recent Canadian politics, before the most recent election. The two party system isn't the root of our problems, if you're speaking from a left-progressive point of view. A lot of the left's problem in America is the notion that perfect is the enemy of the good. Which is to say, it takes very little to make sure leftists don't show up to vote, which makes parties not value the left as a demographic because they aren't a reliable base. Edit: Also, the obvious problem that the ideology of the left doesn't lend itself to having a lot of financial resources, which is necessary to do things in most political systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Luna Was Here posted:So I've seen some talk on it and it seems the biggest issue with our politics is that when it comes to a national scale, there is pretty much only two parties. I've seen some discussion on how to fix this and most people usually point to the Alternate Vote (as opposed to our current system which is like Past the Post or something ??) but would something like that really "fix" our system or would most people not even care and just vote Blue or Red anyways? it would take a while but yeah, the two party system is rigidly enforced by how votes are counted and how a winner is picked. with winner take all voting you basically just need to hit a certain threshold of votes, and if you don't then you lose everything, simple as that. this means that parties have an incentive to collect the most votes possible, so you end up with really big-tent parties that have a lot of little factions within them all struggling for control but everyone gets into office together (or loses together). also with first past the post voting you vote for one person or party, rather than being able to split a set of votes (everyone gets five votes, maybe i want to vote three times for hillary and twice for johnson) to not be in the big tent is to be ignored, because you will never get enough votes to gain office. if a third party starts to be popular enough one of the big parties will absorb the smaller party , or the big party will split over the issue and you'll have a new big party. this is what happened in 1856 when the whigs completely fell apart over slavery and the republicans popped up as the "let's stop slavery from expanding at least" party not sure this would actually fix anything though, as having two big groups of parties rather than a dozen little fractured parties is a little more efficient. and you'd still see a small number of dominant parties with little fringe parties on the outside just kind of taking up space, being ignored as if they aren't necessary to form a coalition then they're irrelevant anyway e: the important assumption people make is that all democrats or all republicans think alike. in the GOP you have the pro-business suits, the god botherers, the low tax anti-government folks, and the xenophobe racists all trying to set common goals. in the dems you have among other groups moderate blue dogs, far left granola types, environmentalists, socially conservative-but-not-that-conservative moderates turned off by the GOP, and various ethnic coalitions. would it be better if the GOP and DNC moderates could team up and form a big moderate status quo coalition? boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
My interpretation of this election has been guided heavily by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Hx5ka1FiA We are at about 0:56 in this video right now, and it has been on point thus far. (Trump is Bill Murray, not the gopher. The gopher represents the Hispanics.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Luna Was Here posted:So I've seen some talk on it and it seems the biggest issue with our politics is that when it comes to a national scale, there is pretty much only two parties. I've seen some discussion on how to fix this and most people usually point to the Alternate Vote (as opposed to our current system which is like Past the Post or something ??) but would something like that really "fix" our system or would most people not even care and just vote Blue or Red anyways? Most of America's voting takes place under a "first past the post" or plurality system, where the majority vote getter wins the seat or delegates and the loser receives nothing. We are a representative republic with remedies for minorities - both on an individual and party level - built into our legislative, judicial and executive processes. Duverger's law states that this sort of plurality system reinforces the majority-minority party process, as voters tend to unite under the party that a) best represents their interests and b) is seen as having the greatest chance of winning an election. This leaves little room for "weak" parties (Greens, Libertarians, etc.), who are unable to win over a majority vote in most districts, though it can happen, as when the Republicans replaced the Whigs. In modern America, the preponderance of plurality systems serves to reinforce the polarization that has come to characterise our society. Everyone is now capable of self-selecting into the set of friends, Facebook groups, Twitter follows and Tumblr blogs that align with those issues they support. Very few expose themselves to competing beliefs or attempt to understand why those beliefs have support. I believe that a multiparty system would go a long way towards having groups of individuals feeling more likely to have their concerns addressed, but I'm not sure that it would really "fix" anything about the way the American political system currently operates. You would still have the same issues with money in politics and resistance to compromise, except spread out amongst scores of political parties and competing ideologies instead of two. ex post facho fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
It's not just the FPTP system by itself. The presidential election provides additional pressure to basically coalition into two parties because it's so important. Otherwise we'd probably have regional/ideological parties in our congress even if they were rarely in any sort of power like the UK and Canada.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
One of the major downsides to a lot of Proportional Representation systems is that the vast majority of people will still tend to fall into one of a few parties that comprise a large section of each side of politics. In these systems you typically need to form a coalition with ideological allies in order to form a working government. This moves a shitton of power to the marginalized and often batshit radical groups that neither major party bloc wants to associate with, but ends up needing to win them over. Basically, it's one of the win conditions for Libertarians. Democracy is hosed, murder you're parents
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
I would imagine that the Free Texas party would become a headache in the proportional-representative House.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Trump is a mess. Trump is a waste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Really, though, the fix for congressional gridlock is to bring back earmarks. Earmarks were one of the few bargaining chips that ideologically opposed pols could use to bargain with one another for supporting legislation, despite the appearance of/actual corruption they entailed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Really, though, the fix for congressional gridlock is to bring back earmarks. Exactly, they seemed shady but it got poo poo down and hell that's what I expect my Congressperson to do is negotiate money/improvements for my area.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
theshim posted:One of the major downsides to a lot of Proportional Representation systems is that the vast majority of people will still tend to fall into one of a few parties that comprise a large section of each side of politics. In these systems you typically need to form a coalition with ideological allies in order to form a working government. This moves a shitton of power to the marginalized and often batshit radical groups that neither major party bloc wants to associate with, but ends up needing to win them over. So like the Tea Party (or Sanders) now?  That is to say, I think that same effect is just felt within the parties in a 2-party system. I am still in favor of a party-roll PR senate. Sure it would still be dominated by a few larger blocs, but it would provide a place for national leaders of alternative parties to exist and also rework one of our most anti-democratic institutions in a way that still provides the institutionalist counterbalance to the id of the House.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
The next President of the United States!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
why did earmarks stop anyway? the red wave of the tea party right? So how would you go about resuming the practice, considering how many of those guys are still sitting safe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Solvency posted:He won't swear but I think we will use language that eludes to rape. Things like "Pinning Hillary down on issues", or "Hillary will force America to lie on it's back!", or possibly more overt things so long as they can be spun to not really mean he was talking about rape or anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Most of America's voting takes place under a "first past the post" or plurality system, where the majority vote getter wins the seat or delegates and the loser receives nothing. We are a representative republic with remedies for minorities - both on an individual and party level - built into our legislative, judicial and executive processes. Duverger's law states that this sort of plurality system reinforces the majority-minority party process, as voters tend to unite under the party that a) best represents their interests and b) is seen as having the greatest chance of winning an election. This leaves little room for "weak" parties (Greens, Libertarians, etc.), who are unable to win over a majority vote in most districts, though it can happen, as when the Republicans replaced the Whigs. Except we'd still get two massively dominant parties, no change in the governing consensus on most issues and it wouldn't change anything, besides making some particularly stupid people feel satisfied that their vote for a no-hoper was 0.001% less wasted. You need to solve the real problem, which is that so for the majority of the population doesn't actually support a slate of good things, usually due to racism and sexism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:why did earmarks stop anyway? the red wave of the tea party right? So how would you go about resuming the practice, considering how many of those guys are still sitting safe? Get a Democratic majority in the House. As long as Republicans are in charge there will be no earmarks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I am still in favor of a party-roll PR senate. Sure it would still be dominated by a few larger blocs, but it would provide a place for national leaders of alternative parties to exist and also rework one of our most anti-democratic institutions in a way that still provides the institutionalist counterbalance to the id of the House. You'd have to massively expand the Senate. I can only imagine what the new committee structures would look like 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Now Corey Lewandowski is on CNN claiming that 'the Khans' son wouldn't have died had Trump been president at that time'. Yup, hard to die for America if your family was profiled and denied entry...
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Really, though, the fix for congressional gridlock is to bring back earmarks. Oh hey, this hasn't made the rounds in this thread yet!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:why did earmarks stop anyway? the red wave of the tea party right? So how would you go about resuming the practice, considering how many of those guys are still sitting safe? They're probably never coming back, becuase the optics are terrible, even if they are extremely for governing and helping your district
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You need to solve the real problem, which is that so for the majority of the population doesn't actually support a slate of good things, usually due to racism and sexism. This is exactly the issue. Changing our voting scheme won't give America a new set of non-batshit insane voters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Yes, it has, multiple times. Stop trying to bring it back, it's a terrible article because it doesn't call out the Republicans for being racist as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sopandeb/status/760199687689338880
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Get a Democratic majority in the House. As long as Republicans are in charge there will be no earmarks. Bad news! quote:A majority of Americans continue to support the congressional ban on earmarks instituted by former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, a new Economist Group/YouGov poll shows. Heritage foundation, YouGov poll, etc. but it seems that earmarks, like so much about the American political system, are a legislative tool widely misunderstood by the voting public.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Didn't he try to set up this exact same fuckin' narrative during the primaries?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Oh good he's inciting violence early.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
The best way to fix American democracy is to go back in time and tell Lincoln 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:This is exactly the issue. Australia's a great example of this: the most representative national voting system in the world, but since it represents a vast majority of awful people it creates awful policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:The best way to fix American democracy is to go back in time and tell FTFY
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
You know if right wing militants kick things off Cincinnati would likely be the place. So many awful, awful people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
And so the scene is set for endless patriot movements after Hillary is elected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:The best way to fix American democracy is to go back in time and tell Lincoln Or just tell him to duck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:They're probably never coming back, becuase the optics are terrible, even if they are extremely for governing and helping your district yeah, that's my concern. any earmarks not for your specific state are way too easy to just paint as corruption!!!! i mean, i totally bought into that as a teenager. it's only after seeing, you know, the alternative, that i get their purpose. AriadneThread fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Get a Democratic majority in the House. As long as Republicans are in charge there will be no earmarks. And, of course, if the Democrats have a majority you no longer need earmarks to get poo poo done because poo poo'll probably just get done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:02
|
|
